international journal of language academy. .pdf · an increase in the number of numeric shift...

International Journal of Language Academy

ISSN: 2342-0251

Volume 2/2 Summer

2014 p. 70/94


Volume 2/2 Summer 2014 p. 70/94

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE IMPACT OF

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON SECOND LANGUAGE

LEARNERS’ WRITTEN PRODUCTION

Hata Dönütünün İkinci Dil Öğrencilerinin Yazılı Metinlerindeki

Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Eda KAHYALAR1 & Zuhal OKAN2

Abstract In the current study, the effects of comprehensive coded indirect corrective feedback (CCICF) on three learners’ written productions are investigated. Another aim of the study is to find out whether recording their errors help the participants to become better acquainted with their frequent error types and to make fewer errors. Furthermore, by using the data from the learning diaries and interviews, we aim to explore the participants’ feedback about the process they have gone through during the study and their general views about corrective feedback (CF). Results indicated that the participants almost always acted on

CCICF and made successful revisions in a large majority of cases (82.46 %), which indicated that, in general terms, it had a positive impact on the revisions of errors. The comparison of the first and the last essays showed that the participant/s who had made sentence structure, adjective form, word form, capitalization and punctuation errors in their first essay/s reduced the number of errors related to these error categories/types in their last compositions. However, for the three participants, there was an increase in the number of numeric shift errors. Regarding the other categories, there was individual variation in the amount of improvement over time. The analysis of the learning diary and interview data revealed that they were satisfied with the CF practices in the study and the practices matched their perceptions about effective CF strategies. They believed they gained awareness of their frequent errors and the CF practices contributed to their learning. Key Words: Error, corrective feedback, comprehensive corrective feedback, coded indirect corrective feedback.

Özet Bu çalışmada yazma derslerinde öğretmenin kodlar kullanarak verdiği kapsamlı hata dönütünün üç öğrencinin yazılı metinlerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Çalışmanın diğer bir amacı ise, öğrencilere yazdıkları her metinle ilgili hatalarının kayıtlarını tutturarak bunun onların en sık yaptıkları hatalar konusundaki farkındalıklarını arttırıp daha doğru yazmalarına yardımcı olup olmadığını ortaya çıkarmaktır. Ayrıca, katılımcıların öğrenme günlükleri ve araştırmacıyla çalışma sonunda yaptıkları görüşmelerin verileri kullanılarak bu öğrencilerin yaşadıkları deneyimlerin ayrıntılı olarak incelenmesi ve hata dönütü konusundaki görüşlerinin belirlenmesi de amaçlanmaktadır. Analiz sonuçları, öğrencilerin verilen hata dönütünü neredeyse her

zaman dikkate aldığını ve verilen hata dönütünü kullanarak yeni taslaklarında çoğunlukla (% 82.46) doğru değişiklikler yaptığını göstermiştir. Bu sonuç verilen hata dönütünün öğrencilerin yeni taslaklarında hatalarını düzeltmeleri konusunda genelde olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Öğrencilerin yazdıkları ilk ve son kompozisyonlar karşılaştırıldığında, ilk kompozisyonlarında cümle yapısı, sıfatların formu, kelimelerin formu, büyük/küçük harf kullanma ve noktalama konularında hata yapan katılımcıların son kompozisyonlarında bu hatalarının sayılarının azaldığı, sayısal değişiklik (tekil/çoğul, sayılabilir/sayılamaz isimler) konularında ise üç katılımcının da son kompozisyonlarında hatalarının arttığı görülmüştür. Diğer hata türleri incelendiğinde katılımcılar arasında zaman içindeki gelişme konusunda bireysel farklılıklar olduğu bulunmuştur. Öğrenme günlükleri ve görüşme verilerinin analizi sonucunda katılımcıların uygulanan hata dönütü yönteminden genel olarak memnun oldukları ve bu sürecin genel görüş ve beklentileriyle uyumlu olduğu belirlenmiştir. Katılımcılar sık yaptıkları hataların farkına vardıklarını ve bu yöntemin öğrenmelerine katkıda bulunduğuna inandıklarını belirtmişlerdir. Anahtar Sözcükler: Hata, hata dönütü, kapsamlı hata dönütü, kodlamalı dolaylı hata dönütü.

1 Dr. Çukurova Üniversitesi, e-posta: [email protected] 2 Prof. Dr. Çukurova Üniversitesi, e-posta: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Hata Dönütünün İkinci Dil Öğrencilerinin Yazılı Metinlerindeki Etkisi Üzerine

Bir Araştırma



71

1. Introduction The term CF in second language acquisition (SLA) is used to refer to responses to the errors in learners’ second language (L2) productions. Giving effective CF is a central concern for language teachers because it is now widely accepted in the field of SLA that a fully meaning-based approach to L2 instruction is not sufficient and attention to linguistic form - at least times - is a necessary condition for L2 learning (Long, 1991;

1996; 2000; Ellis, 2005; Norris & Ortega, 2000). According to Doughty (2003), L2 acquisition could be expected to be slower, more difficult, and less successful without any

attention to linguistic form. Long’s (1991, 2000) focus-on-form approach is based on this conception and involves overtly drawing students’ attention to linguistic elements. CF is considered as a reactive focus-on-form methodology, which induces learners’ attention to form in the context of performing a task in a personalized, individualized manner (Van Beuningen, 2010). Although teachers provide CF on the errors in their students’ oral productions, CF on written production is usually considered to be more effective to help learners notice the gaps in their interlanguage (IL) for some reasons. Firstly, extensive correction in online oral language use, during which meaning is the priority, may be demotivating for some students. In a study by Doughty & Varela (1998), it was reported that students were not comfortable with receiving more than one or two instances of correction within one exchange. Also, extensive CF during oral production might produce a cognitive overload because of limitations on memory, capacity, attention span, and information processing ability; thus, it may lead to little uptake on the learners’ part (Han, 2002). In writing, however, learners have enough time and cognitive resources to compare their production with the CF they received, which is more likely to enable them to notice the gaps in their IL (Sheen, 2010). Since Truscott’s (1996) article “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”, CF in L2 writing has attracted great attention by L2 writing scholars. Although a large number of studies have provided evidence on the positive effects of teachers’ CF on learners’ written texts, due to the differences related to the design of these studies and so many variables involved, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions, and the role played by CF in L2 writing is still a controversial issue among L2 writing scholars and teachers.

Besides the debate over the usefulness of CF in L2 writing, there is also a controversy about which errors teachers should correct if they are providing CF. In fact, what is more important is to clarify what an “error” is. The well-known distinction between mistakes and errors, which was introduced by Corder (1967), emphasizes that they are two very different phenomena. A mistake is “a performance error that is either a random guess or

a slip in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly”, which is common in both native and second language situations. Mistakes can be self-corrected when attention is called to them. Errors of a second language learner, on the other hand, are “idiosyncrasies in the language of the learner that are direct manifestations of a system within which a learner is operating at the time” (Brown, 2007, pp. 257-258). Corder (1967) argued that it is useful to correct learners’ errors, but not mistakes. Moreover, he claimed that the absence of feedback in the case where a message is transmitted despite linguistic errors may encourage their continuous existence. However, it is not always possible to tell the difference between an error and a mistake (Brown, 2007, p. 258). When written productions are being studied, learners are usually asked to proofread their writing before submitting in order to make sure that the draft represents their best possible version and that the errors are not slips of the pen that can be self-corrected by

Zuhal OKAN & Eda KAHYALAR



72

72

the author (Qi & Lapkin, 2001, p. 285). Thus, by most teachers, the inaccuracies in their students’ written texts are considered as “errors” in Corder’s terms. In the context of the current study, all the inaccuracies in the participants’ written texts were labelled as errors because they were asked to proofread each draft before submitting it.

2. Method

The relevant literature on CF demonstrates the necessity of doing case studies to develop a sound understanding of the feedback and revision process and to look at each student

on his/her own context individually. In the present study, the call for more qualitative and longitudinal research designs in CF studies was heeded. Taking the related literature into account, the current multiple case study aims to investigate the effects of CCICF on three students’ written production in three error families: grammatical, lexical and mechanical. The impact of systematically provided CCICF is evaluated both on their revised drafts and future assignments over a two-month period. It is an important study because only a few studies to date have investigated whether comprehensive correction of every error in students’ writing yields a learning effect, so the evidence on the learning potential of unfocused CF is scarce (Van Beuningen, 2010 p.5). Another aim of the current study is to gain a deeper understanding of the participants’ response to CCICF, explore their views about the CF practices we adopted and their general views about CF by using the data from their learning diaries and interviews.

2.1. Participants The participants of the study are three students from the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture at Çukurova University, Turkey. They were taking an English preparation class at Çukurova University School of Foreign Languages (YADYO) and they were chosen randomly among those who volunteered to take part in the study. Although we had planned to use pseudonyms to protect the participants’ identities, their real names are used in the study in accordance with their wishes.

2.2. Data Collection Tools and Procedures In this study, detailed information about each participant was obtained through a

number of data collection tools and procedures: 7 out-of-class essays with at least three drafts, their error lists, error tally sheets, edit logs, learning diaries and semi-structured interviews with the researcher. The researcher followed widely accepted guidelines of standard English to identify the errors in the essays and consulted a native speaker of English in case of any hesitation.

To give CCICF on the participant’ essays, a chart which had been adapted from Hartshorn (2008) and Ferris (2006) and which was modified after a pilot study was used. (See Appendix 1). After the modification of the chart, a list of error samples and examples of CCICF with the intended corrections was prepared (See Appendix 2). The rationale behind this was to help the participants in case of confusion about the error categories/types and the coding symbols. Before the main study, the researcher held an orientation meeting with each participant to explain what they were required to do as a participant. During those meetings, the participants said that they would naturally feel more confident while writing about their experiences, thoughts and feelings in their native language, so they were asked to keep their learning diaries in Turkish, their native language.


Bir Araştırma



73

The error correction process implemented for each essay in the study is outlined in Figure 1 below.

Participant Researcher

Figure 1. The error correction process implemented for each essay in the study After the essay writing and error correction process, the researcher conducted a semi-structured interview with each participant to get their feedback about the process they had gone through during the study and to explore their general views about CF. The interviews were carried out in Turkish because, as mentioned earlier, the participants

2 Collects the essays, gives written feedback

dealing with the content and organization and then returns the essays. Holds an optional 5 minute conference session with each participant.

3 Revises the essay using the feedback and submits the

revised draft.

5

Revises the essay and tries to

correct the errors which are

marked. Records his/her errors

by category/type on error list

sheets and error tally sheets;

writes about his/her experience

in the learning diary and

submits the revised edition.

1 Writes an out-of-class essay and submits the initial draft after

proofreading it.

4 Gives CCICF in three error families by underlining/bracketing the errors and attaching appropriate error codes. Gives additional content feedback where necesssary. Records each participant’s errors and revisions for future reference and analysis. Holds an optional 5-minute conference session with each

participant.

6 Steps 4 and 5 are repeated as necessary. If errors are perpetuated in subsequent drafts, CCICF is given as many times as needed until the deadline for each essay. Each essay is completed within one and a half week. The final draft is graded according to the standard rubric used at YADYO. All drafts are then

saved and catalogued.




74

74

said that they would express themselves more easily in their native language. The learning diary and interview data were then translated into English. During the analysis of the essays and the revised drafts, we used an analysis scheme which we adapted from Ferris (2006) and developed according to what we found in the data. The scheme is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Revision Analysis Categories

Label Description

Error corrected Error corrected according to CCICF Incorrect change Change was made but incorrect No change No response to CCICF was apparent Deleted text The participant deleted marked text rather than

attempting correction

Substitution correct The participant invented a correction that was not suggested by CCICF

Substitution incorrect The participant incorrectly made a change that was not suggested by CCICF

Unnecessary change The participant made a change in a part of the text where there was no CCICF, and this change caused a new error/errors to appear

Revision-induced error The participant attempted to make a correction in a particular part of the text according to CCICF. However, errors still appear in those particular parts of the text because this revision focused on only one major problematic item (run-on sentence, incomplete sentence, awkward sentence, or a sentence with unclear meaning or word order error), or the revision of an error caused a new type of error.

3. Findings and Discussion The findings of the study are summarized and discussed under three subsections: overview of the essays and revised drafts, overview of the learning diaries, and overview of the interviews.

3.1. Overview of the Essays and Revised Drafts

The participants responded to all of the feedback on the content and organization of their essays, and they always made successful revisions. This finding shows that they could understand the feedback and the suggested revisions clearly. As for grammatical errors, they had a really high number of successful corrections in their first revisions. In Table 2 below, the results concerning the participants’ grammatical errors and related revisions are presented.


Bir Araştırma



75

Table 2 Errors and Revisions in Grammatical Error Family

Error category and error type

Total number of errors

Number of errors corrected in the first revision

Number of errors corrected in the second revision

Number of errors which could not be corrected

Ö M B Ö M B Ö M B Ö M B

Sentence structure errors Run-on sentence

3

1

1

3

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Word order 4 2 16 4 2 13 - - 3 - - -

Total 27 24 3 -

Determiner errors Articles

15

11

28

15

11

28

-

-

-

-

-

-

Possessive adjectives and possessive nouns

-

-

2

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Demonstratives as determiners

- - 2 - - 2 - - - - - -

Total 58 58 - -

Verb errors Subject- verb agreement

3

-

9

3

-

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

Verb tense 10 - 3 10 - 3 - - - - - - Verb form 2 1 3 2 1 3 - - - - - - Infinitive/Gerund - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - -

Total 32 31 - -

Numeric shift errors Count/Non-count

1

1

7

1

1

7

-

-

-

-

-

-

Singular/plural 10 4 18 10 4 18 - - - - - -

Total 41 41 - -

Semantic errors Unclear meaning

5

-

10

5

-

9

-

-

1

-

-

-

Awkwardness 2 - 10 2 - 10 - - - - - -

Insertion/Omission 22 6 40 22 5 37 - 1 3 - - -

Total 95 90 5 -

Modal errors Structurally incorrect

2

1

-

2

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total 3 3 - -

Pronoun errors Subject pronoun

-

-

2

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indefinite pronoun - 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - - - Reflexive pronoun - 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - - -

Total 6 6 - -

Adjective form




76

76

errors Comparative adjective

1 - 2 1 - 2 - - - - - -

Total 3 3 - -

Grand Total 265 256 8 -

Ö: Özgecan M: Muratcan B:Betül

As can be seen in Table 2, the participants could successfully correct most of their

grammatical erros in their first revisions. Only 8 errors (out of 265) required second revisions to be corrected, and there were no errors that could not be corrected by the participants after they received CCICF. These results suggest that, in general terms, CCICF was effective to treat the errors in grammatical error family, which can be viewed as gains in the short term. This outcome is in accordance with Ferris (2006), Van Beuningen et al. (2008), Truscott & Hsu (2008) and Storch (2009 cited in Storch, 2010) in that unfocused CF led to improved accuracy from one draft of a paper to the next. However, it stands in contrast to Truscott’s (1996; 2001; 2007) claims that students may

fail to understand teachers’ grammar feedback and CF could not have any value for errors in grammar. In order to find out whether CCICF was effective in improving the grammatical accuracy of the participants’ writing over time, we compared each participant’s first and seventh essays in terms of the total number of errors related to each error category in grammatical error family. The results are demonstrated in Table 3.

Table 3

Longitudinal Comparisons of Grammatical Errors

Participant Total Number of Errors

Özgecan Muratcan Betül

Error category Essay 1

Essay 7

Essay 1 Essay 7 Essay 1

Essay 7

Sentence structure errors

2 1 2 - 4 1

Determiner errors 1 1 1 1 6 8 Verb errors 3 - - 1 2 - Numeric shift errors 1 2 - 1 3 9 Semantic errors 2 2 1 2 11 6 Modal errors - - - - - -

Pronoun errors - - 1 - 1 1 Adjective form errors 1 - - - - -

Grand Total 10 6 5 5 27 25

As one can see in Table 3, there is individual variation in the participants’ accuracy development over time. We observed a reduction in the total number of errors in the three participants’ essays in sentence structure errors. Thus, sentence structure errors could be considered treatable with CCICF. This finding is not in line with Ferris’s (2006) findings because the students’ scores for sentence structure errors were slightly worse when their essays at the beginning and at the end of the writing course, during which they received CF, was compared.


Bir Araştırma



77

With the results in Table 2 and Table 3, three points can be made about the effects of CCICF on grammatical errors. First, CCICF led to improved accuracy from one draft of an essay to the next, which indicates its value for errors in grammar in the short term. Second, the reduction from essay 1 to essay 7 in sentence structure errors in the three participants’ essays suggests that CCICF was effective to treat the errors in this category not only in the short run, but also over time. Finally, since there was great individual variation in the participants’ accuracy development over time, an over focus on Ferris’s

(1999; 2002; 2006) dichotomy between treatable and untreatable errors may cause us to ignore learner variables.

As for lexical errors, similar to the revision of their grammatical errors, the participants had a high number of successful revisions according to CCICF. Table 4 below provides the results about the three participants’ lexical errors and revisions based on CCICF.

Table 4

Errors and Revisions in Lexical Error Family

Error category

Total number of errors

Number of errors corrected in the first revision

Number of errors corrected in the second revision

Number of errors corrected in the third revision

Number of errors which could not be corrected

Ö M B Ö M B Ö M B Ö M B Ö M B

Word choice

18 18 39 16 18 37

2 - 2 - - - - - -

Word form 2 - 5 2 - 5 - - - - - - - - -

Preposition 8 12 28 8 11 22 - 1 4 - - 1 - - 1

Grand Total 130 119 9 1 1


The results in Table 4 reveal that in most cases, CCICF was effective to treat the errors in lexical error family because most of the errors could be corrected successfully in the first revision. Out of 130 errors, only 9 errors required second revisions, and one error required a third revision to be corrected. The only error which could not be corrected was a preposition error in Betül’s second essay. She deleted the part of the sentence which contained the error instead of trying to fix it. The participants’ success in correcting their lexical errors shows that CCICF was beneficial for these errors. This outcome is not in

accordance with Ferris’s (1999; 2002; 2006) treatable-untreatable dichotomy as she suggested that the idiosyncrasy of lexical errors makes them less suitable targets for CF. On the contrary, it provides corroboration for Truscott’s (2007) claim that lexical errors belong to the most correctible L2 problems because they are relatively simple and can be treated as discrete items. The high percentage of the participants’ correct revisions might be attributable to the fact that recording their errors and keeping a learning diary during the study contributed to their awareness of their frequent errors and wrong practices in writing, if any. This awareness, which was verified by several entries from their learning

diaries, might have helped them to develop strategies to revise their errors successfully. With regard to their lexical errors, one common strategy for the three participants, which they mentioned in their diaries and interviews, was to use a monolingual English dictionary to treat them. Thus, we can conclude that the practices in our study might have helped them to notice the gaps, in Schmidt’s (1990a; 1990b; 2001) terms, between




78

78

what they produce and what they need to produce. The awareness they gained through recording errors and the attention they paid during the revision process required the combination of the two crucial notions of noticing: attention and awareness (Svalberg, 2007), which was highly likely to contribute to their successful revisions. The comparison of each participant’s essay 1 and essay 7 to find out whether there was a reduction in their number of lexical errors indicated that there was individual variation in

their ability to benefit from CCICF in the long term. The results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Longitudinal Comparisons of Lexical Errors

Participant

Total Number of Errors


Error category Essay 1 Essay 7 Essay 1 Essay 7 Essay 1 Essay 7

Word choice - 3 3 4 11 6 Word form 1 - - - 2 - Preposition 2 3 2 3 6 3

Grand Total 3 6 5 7 19 9

As is shown in Table 5, Betül made a noticeable reduction in her lexical errors, which might suggest that she was the one who benefited the most from CCICF in the long term. Considering word choice errors, we can see in Table 5 that the number of errors in Betül’s seventh essay decreased while it increased in Özgecan’s and Muratcan’s seventh essays. This finding is not surprising when we consider Betül’s frequent errors, which means that there was more room for improvement in her essays. While it is difficult to speculate about the reason/s for the increase in Özgecan’s word choice errors, it seems reasonable to conclude that the increase in Muratcan’s word choice errors might have resulted from the fact that he was a participant who did not avoid writing complex sentences or using a wider range of vocabulary to avoid making errors. Regarding word form errors, it can be

seen in Table 5 that Özgecan and Betül did not make any errors in their seventh essays although they had errors related to this error category in their first essays. This result might suggest that CCICF helped them to improve over time. Results concerning the preposition errors also show individual variation. A quick glance at Table 5 makes it clear that while the number of total preposition errors was higher in Özgecan’s and Muratcan’s seventh essays when compared to their first ones, there was a 50 % reduction in the number of Betül’s preposition errors over time.

The results in Table 4 and Table 5 suggest that although the three participants were able to edit their lexical errors from one draft to the next, only Betül made a noticeable reduction in her lexical errors over time. One possible explanation for this noticeable improvement might be that she had more room for improvement in her writing since she had a lot more lexical errors in her first essay when compared to Özgecan and Muratcan. The entries in her learning diary verified that Betül had identified a wrong practice in her writing, writing the sentences in Turkish first and translating them into English word for word, as the cause of her word order, awkward sentence and unclear sentence errors. Her avoidance of that wrong practice to avoid these errors might also have had an effect on the reduction of her lexical errors.


Bir Araştırma



79

As for the mechanical errors, the participants had a high number of successful corrections in their first revisions. Table 6 below provides the results about the three participants’ mechanical errors and related revisions.

Table 6

Errors and Revisions in Mechanical Error Family

Error category Total number of errors

Number of errors corrected in

the first revision

Number of errors corrected in

the second revision

Number of errors which

could not be corrected

Number of errors in final drafts

which could not be dealt with by giving CCICF

Ö M B Ö M B Ö M B Ö M B Ö M B

Spelling 14 - 11 12 - 11 1 - - - - - 1 - -

Capitalization - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - - - - -

Punctuation 7 5 22 6 5 18 1 - 3 - - - - - 1

Grand Total 60 53 5 - 2


A quick glance at Table 6 makes it clear that most of the mechanical errors could be corrected by the participants in their first revisions. Only one spelling error and 4 punctuation errors required second revisions to be corrected. One spelling error in Özgecan’s essay and one spelling error in Betül’s essay could not be dealt with by giving CCICF because they were in the final drafts. Thus, we can conclude that CCICF led to improved mechanical accuracy in the short run. This finding is in accordance with the related literature (Ferris, 2006; Truscott, 2007). In order to find out whether CCICF was effective in improving their mechanical accuracy from the beginning to the end of the study, we compared the number of mechanical errors in each participant’s first and seventh essays in terms of the number of the mechanical errors. The results are provided in Table 7.

Table 7

Longitudinal Comparisons of Mechanical Errors

Participant

Total Number of Errors


Error category Essay 1 Essay 7 Essay 1 Essay 7 Essay 1 Essay 7

Spelling 2 2 - - 5 1 Capitalization - - - - 1 - Punctuation - - 2 - 2 1

Grand Total 2 2 2 - 8 2

As the results provided in Table 7 show, there was no reduction in Özgecan’s spelling errors; however, Betül made a noticeable reduction in her spelling errors. Considering capitalization errors, we can see that only Betül made an error in her first essay, but no capitalization errors appeared in her seventh essay. Muratcan made only two errors related to mechanical error family, two of which were punctuation errors in his first




80

80

essay, and there were no punctuation errors in his last essay. Betül’s punctuation errors, on the other hand, did not disappear, but there was a reduction in the number. The results presented in Table 6 and Table 7 suggest that CCICF was effective in the long term for Muratcan and Betül, but not for Özgecan, to avoid mechanical errors in their essays. The results above, taken together, suggest that CCICF led to improved accuracy on the

three participants’ revised texts. Considering accuracy in their new texts, there were five error categories in which the participant(s) who made errors in the first essay made

reductions in the number of errors related to that category in their seventh essay: sentence structure, adjective form, word form, capitalization and punctuation errors. This finding indicates that CCICF was effective to treat the errors in these categories not only in the short term, but also in the long term. On the other hand, there was an increase in the number of numeric shift errors for the three participants. This outcome shows that when numeric shift errors are considered, CCICF led to improved accuracy in revised texts, but not in new texts. As for the other error categories, there was individual variation in the amount of improvement over time. In the current study, we also analysed the extent to which CCICF was used by each participant. The results are demonstrated in percentages for the ten error categories in Table 8.

Table 8 Extent of Use of CCICF by Each Participant

Error Category Percent of CCICF acted on (does not include “Deleted text” category)


Sentence structure 100 100 100 Determiner 100 100 100 Verb 100 100 100 Numeric shift 100 100 100 Semantic 100 100 98.3 Modal 100 100 No errors in this

category Pronoun No errors in this

category 100 100

Adjective form 100 No errors in this category

100

Word choice 100 100 94.87

Word form 100 100 100 Preposition 100 100 96.42 Spelling 92.3 100 100 Capitalization 100 100 100 Punctuation 85.71 100 100

As can be seen in Table 8, overall, the three participants responded to almost all of the feedback points they were offered. For Muratcan, there were no feedback points which were not acted on. This is no surprise when we consider the facts, which were verified by his learning diary and interview data, that he really valued teacher’s feedback, and accuracy was a very important issue for him. For Özgecan and Betül, on the other hand, there were a few unused feedback points. Out of a total of 13 feedback points related to


Bir Araştırma



81

the spelling errors in her essays, Özgecan did not respond to one feedback point in her subsequent draft. Similarly, she did not respond to one feedback point (out of a total of 7 feedback points) related to a punctuation error. Although it is difficult to speculate on the causes of her lack of response which accounted for only a small percentage of the feedback points she was offered, we believe these feedback points must have escaped her notice since they were in her initial drafts, in which there were a lot of other errors marked. Returning to Table 8, it can be observed that, like Özgecan, Betül did not

respond to a few feedback points she was offered in her first revised drafts. Out of 60 errors marked in the semantic errors category, she did not act on only one feedback

point, which was related to an insertion error. That error was in her initial draft in which she had a lot of errors marked, so it is highly likely that the feedback point escaped her notice while she was revising her errors. She acted on the feedback in her next revised draft and managed to correct that error. The other unused feedback points were related to her lexical errors. Out of a total of 39 feedback points about the word choice errors in her essays, she acted on 37 (94.87 %) of them. In one case, no response was apparent in her first revised draft after receiving CCICF, but she acted on the feedback and corrected her word choice error in her next revised draft. As a response to CCICF which marked a preposition error in her fifth essay, however, she deleted the part of the text which included the error. She might have deleted that part because of not knowing what the suggested change was. Because we did not include “Deleted text” revision category in the percentage of CCICF acted on, the percentage of CCICF acted on is 96.42 for her preposition errors. To conclude, the evidence from Table 8 suggests that the participants nearly always responded to the error feedback they were offered. In addition, the fact that they could correct a very high number of their errors successfully in their first revisions demonstrate that they could understand the error feedback they were offered. These results, taken together, do not support Truscott’s (1996) claim that students ignore teacher feedback and are not able to use it effectively, but corroborate the findings of several studies (Saito, 1994; Zhang, 1995; Ferris, 1997; Hyland, 1998; Ferris, 2006) in that the participants valued teacher feedback, appeared to address the majority of the feedback points and were able to make successful revisions most of the time. As mentioned earlier, during the analysis of the participants’ revised drafts, we used an

analysis scheme which we adapted from Ferris (2006) and developed on the basis of what we found in the data. The summary of the results about the participants’ revision analysis categories is provided in Table 9.

Table 9

Summary of the Participants’ Revision Analysis Categories

Category Özgecan Muratcan Betül Total Frequency

%

Error corrected 130 64 248 442 82.46 Incorrect change 2 2 14 18 3.35 No change 3 - 3 6 1.11 Deleted text - - 1 1 0.18 Substitution correct - - 7 7 1.3 Substitution incorrect - - 2 2 0.37 Unnecessary change 6 - 5 11 2.05 Revision-induced error 10 1 38 49 9.14 Total 151 67 318 536 ≈100




82

82

As can be clearly seen in Table 9, in a large majority of the cases (82.46 %), the participants’ revisions according to CCICF were under “error corrected” category. They made incorrect changes in response to only 3.35 % of the feedback points and no changes in only 1.11 % of the cases. There was only one case (0.18%) in which the part of the text that included the error was deleted as a response to CCICF. The participants invented a correction that was not suggested by CCICF (substitution correct) in 1.3 % of the cases. The percentage of “substitution incorrect” category was 0.37 %, and changes in a part of

the text where there was no CCICF (unnecessary change) appeared in 2.05 % of the total revisions. In 9.14 % of the cases, the participants’ revisions resulted in “revision-induced

errors”. These findings, taken together, do not support Truscott’s (1996) argument that students lack the skills to understand and use teachers’ CF because they were able to make successful revisions in response to a large majority of feedback points they have been offered, which would have been impossible if they had not comprehended the feedback. The results found are consistent with the findings of several studies (Lalande, 1982; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ashwell, 2000; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Ferris, 2006) in that they provide evidence on the effectiveness and helpfulness of CF in error correction and improved accuracy.

3.2. Overview of the Learning Diaries

Overall, the entries in the learning diaries show the participants’ satisfaction with the CF practices. Özgecan mentioned that receiving content and organization feedback first and separately was advantageous because it prevented confusion over what to focus on. The three participants expressed their positive feelings related to receiving coded indirect feedback at the point of error and being required to self-correct their errors in their revised drafts. The quotations from the actual learning diaries below illustrate their views.

In the corrective feedback about grammar, I liked the teacher’s indicating and locating my errors by using codes. I did not lose any time to identify my errors, so I could focus on fixing them immediately. (Özgecan)

I believe this is a very good practice of giving feedback because we see our errors clearly. This enables us to fix them more successfully and to learn better. (Muratcan)

My teacher indicates the errors in my essays, but she does not provide the correct form. She helps me think aloud about my errors, and I find the correct form in this way. I think this is a really good practice. (Betül) However, for Özgecan and Betül, writing a revised draft because of only a few errors was sometimes too demanding and even discouraging. Occasionally, this negative feeling caused them to make new errors in their revised drafts because of writing fast and carelessly. Without the entries in their learning diaries, it would have been impossible for us to speculate on the causes of some new errors in their revised drafts. The evidence from the learning diaries indicates that recording their errors enabled the participants to gain awareness of their frequent types of errors. This awareness made them think about the reasons for their frequent errors and develop effective strategies to revise and/or avoid them. Moreover, while thinking deeply about their frequent errors,


Bir Araştırma



83

they identified some wrong practices in their writing, and made plans to increase their success. The entries below from their learning diaries verify this point.

I have noticed that I make errors when I try to avoid repetition. The cause of the errors is that I do not use a dictionary. I use the words which I think are correct without checking their meanings in a dictionary. I sometimes translate word for word while I am writing, and I see I make errors when I do that. I should use a monolingual dictionary not only to find

the correct word, but also to spell words correctly. I really need to get into the habit of using a dictionary. It is necessary to increase my success. (Özgecan)

I hadn’t expected to have so many errors in my essay. I realized that most of them were word choice and punctuation errors, so I decided to use a monolingual English dictionary. In this way, I could find the correct word to use, how to use it in a sentence, and I could fix my errors more easily. (Muratcan)

I make word order errors usually because I cannot decide where to use the adverbs in my sentences. Also, I write a sentence in Turkish and translate it word for word, which causes word order, awkward sentence and unclear sentence errors. I must use a monolingual dictionary to avoid these errors. (Betül) The entries related to the topics of the essays show that only Özgecan had some negative comments about some of the topics. Her negative attitude affected her feelings and experiences during the revision process because she felt discouraged because of the high number of errors only when she had a negative attitude towards the topic of the essay. This finding suggests rather than asking students to write about one topic, it might be better to provide them with alternative topics to choose from so that they do not feel discouraged during the revision process because of their negative attitude towards the topic. We should also note that the three participants’ feelings during the revision process

depended on the number of errors and successful revisions. While reductions in their errors fostered positive feelings, an increase in the number of their errors usually led to feelings of disappointment and discouragement. The comments below indicate this point.

I feel down because there are so many errors in my essay, and I do not feel like writing now. (Özgecan)

I have eight errors in my initial draft. In my first essay, I had twelve errors, and now I am happy to see that the number has decreased. (Muratcan)

I have fewer errors in my recent essays when compared to my previous ones, which is very pleasing. Also, I correct the errors in my essays more easily now. (Betül)

Thus, when giving feedback, focusing on only errors, not on improvement, may result in some negative attitudes and reactions to it, which in turn may cause some students to lose their confidence or enthusiasm for writing. In order to prevent this and make these learners benefit from CF, feedback practices which also focus on positive feedback might be more effective. With the evidence from the learning diaries, it seems plausible to conclude that the participants’ response to feedback and their successful revisions might be attributed to

their satisfaction with the way CF was provided. The facts that CF was provided in the way they preferred, and they believed it contributed to their writing might have affected their utilization of feedback in a positive way. As was detailed earlier, we found out that




84

84

the three participants’ acted on nearly all of the feedback points they were offered, and their revisions were usually successful. These findings corroborate Montgomery & Baker’s (2007) suggestion that students can most effectively follow those kinds of feedback that they prefer. They are also in line with Najmaddin’s (2010) claim that students’ perceptions of the style of feedback decide the extent to which they incorporate into their writing.

3.3. Overview of the Interviews

The interview data revealed that, among the participants, there was a general satisfaction with the way CF was given in the study. They all expressed their positive views about receiving content and organization feedback first and separately because they thought it prevented confusion over what to focus on. They were also content with receiving coded indirect corrective feedback at the point of error because they could see their errors clearly, which eased the error correction process. However, they had different views about writing revised drafts. When the data from the learning diaries and the interviews were compared, we found out that Özgecan and Muratcan’s attitudes toward writing revised drafts changed over time while there was no change in Betül’s perceptions concerning writing revised drafts. During the interviews, Özgecan and Muratcan commented that it was too demanding and even discouraging to write the whole essay again because of only a few errors, but they said they then realized it was necessary for long-term progress and changed their attitudes towards that practice. Betül, on the other hand, expressed her negative views about it both in her learning diary and interview. Also, during the interview, she expressed her preference for oral CF for minor errors and written CF for major errors in writing although she did not have any entries in her learning diary related

to this preference. These results correspond to Sakalı’s (2007) finding in that students change their feedback preference over time. The change in the participants’ perceptions might be attributed to the experience they had during the essay writing and revision process. As Betül was the one who received more feedback points on her essays and had several revised drafts, some of which were written because of only a few errors, she might have thought of different feedback practices that were more likely to save her time and energy.

With regard to recording errors, the three participants agreed that this practice enabled them to gain awareness of their frequent types of errors, which they thought was really useful to avoid them in the future. Only Özgecan mentioned a change in her attitude. At first, she had thought it was meaningless to record her errors but had a positive attitude to it later because she could see her previous errors while recording her new ones, which

she believed was useful to heighten her awareness.

The three participants’ views about keeping a learning diary were positive. Özgecan said that it was beneficial to keep a learning diary because she could use it to see her progress and/or regression. Betül, on the other hand, commented that it not only helped her to gain awareness, but she also thought about how to take advantage of that awareness in the future. For Muratcan, it was difficult to find a lot of things to write about, which he thought might have resulted from not having a high number of errors, but he still believed it was useful to keep a diary since it gave him the opportunity to express himself. As was detailed before, in most of the entries in their diaries, the participants commented on the number of their errors and compared their new essays with their previous ones in terms of the number and types of errors. Thus, with the evidence from their interview


Bir Araştırma



85

data, it seems plausible to conclude that for the participants, keeping a learning diary, besides recording errors, was another way to track their progress over time. The comments concerning the participants’ utilization of CF made it clear that they valued feedback and were willing to use it effectively. They used reference books, and they were able to self-correct most of their errors. They said that they occasionally needed to consult their teachers about their errors before they wrote a revised draft. Betül also

mentioned that she sometimes discussed her errors with her friends, which she said facilitated her error correction process by making her think aloud about her errors.

However, the three participants emphasized that they made all the revisions by themselves, which indicated that, generally, CCICF was clear, and they could understand what the suggested revisions were. With regard to the effects of CCICF, the interview data indicate that the three participants believed CCICF contributed to their learning and writing skill in many ways. One common point mentioned by them was that thanks to seeing their errors clearly, they gained awareness of their frequent types of errors, which made them think about the causes of these errors, focus their attention on them and develop strategies to revise and avoid these types of errors in their subsequent written productions. These results do not support Krashen’s (1982) or Truscott’s (1996) arguments that, by making them aware of their errors, CF leads to learner stress and anxiety of committing the same errors in future writing. Özgecan also mentioned that receiving content and organization feedback first and separately enabled her to notice and correct some errors in her essays while she was revising them according to the feedback on content and organization. This was a point verified by an example from her second essay. Her comments during the interview make it clear that Özgecan considered the revision after content and organization feedback as a proofreading stage. Another point we should note here is that the three participants believed CCICF made the greatest contribution to their learning related to the biggest gaps in their knowledge of English because the areas they mentioned were the ones in which they made frequent errors. The last common point mentioned by the participants about the contribution of CCICF was related to their writing fluency, which they defined as writing the essays in a shorter time. They thought that focusing on their errors and

being required to write revised drafts after receiving CCICF improved their accuracy in general, and they could use the knowledge they gained during the revision process easily and more confidently in their future essays. Their positive views about the effects of CCICF might be attributed to their overall satisfaction with the CF practices in the study. During the interview, only Betül mentioned a harmful effect of being required to write a

revised draft until the text was error free. She said that writing the whole essay again because of only a few errors discouraged her from writing. This was a point which was also mentioned in her learning diary. Her comment during the interview makes it clear that her attitude to this practice did not change over time. This negative attitude is highly likely to have resulted from the fact that, on several occasions, she had to write the whole essay again because of only a few errors, and she was the participant who had the highest number of edited drafts. Moreover, this negative feeling sometimes caused her to make new errors in her revised drafts because of writing fast and carelessly. These factors might have made her think that writing a revised draft had a beneficial effect only when there were many errors to correct. Özgecan, on the other hand, changed her attitude towards writing a revised draft. Although she expressed her negative feelings in some entries in her learning diary, during the interview, she said that being required to write




86

86

the whole essay again did not discourage her from writing even when she wrote a revised draft because of one error. On the contrary, she said she wrote enthusiastically because she was learning. This change in her attitude might have resulted from her realization of its contribution to her learning. During the interviews, besides getting the participants’ views about the feedback practices in the study, we also explored their general views about CF. The results reveal

that they all value teacher’s CF and consider it as a prerequisite for students’ language development. They believe that lack of CF would have a negative effect on their learning.

The three participants share the view that teachers should give unfocused indirect CF with both indicating and locating the errors. With regard to revision, they all commented that revising their errors after receiving CF is essential to produce better written texts, and that students benefit more from self correction than teacher’s direct correction. Although the three participants agreed that written CF is effective in general, Muratcan claimed that teachers should give both written and oral CF to make feedback clearer, and they should recommend some reference books to their learners so that they can correct their errors more successfully. Betül, on the other hand, commented that she prefers written CF for major errors and oral CF for minor errors. Concerning the possible harmful effects of CF, only Muratcan thought that CF can have a detrimental impact on some learners by causing feelings of discouragement and demotivation because they realize how many errors they have made. He believed whether or not students have such negative feelings depends on their teacher’s attitude, and he claimed that if the teacher’s behaviour is encouraging, CF always has a positive impact on learners. We should note here that when she was asked about the potential harmful effects of CF, Betül said it could not have any harmful effects although she had mentioned a harmful effect about being required to write a revised draft several times. Her interview data make it clear that what made her feel less enthusiastic about writing was not related to receiving CF and being required to edit her errors, but to writing a revised draft when there were only a few errors to correct. On the whole, the interview data indicate that the participants were pleased with the practices in the study. Their response to almost all of the feedback points and the high percentage of successful revisions might be attributable to the facts that they valued CF,

and the way they received it usually matched their expectations.

4. Implications of the Study The finding that there was individual variation in the amount of improvement over time for most of the error categories may imply that learners differ in their ability to benefit

from CF, especially in the long term, so a more qualitative and longitudinal research design should be applied in CF studies in order to investigate students’ utilization of CF and their (lack of) accuracy development over time. Also, our findings may suggest that we cannot have a clear distinction between “treatable” and “untreatable” errors due to the individual variation in the participants’ accuracy development over time. Thus, a general classification of errors as “treatable” and “untreatable” and not giving CF for errors in “untreatable” category or teachers’ direct correction of those errors deserves more attention. Although some researchers (Sheen, 2007; Ellis et al, 2008; Bitchener, 2008) claim that focused CF is more beneficial to accuracy development because unfocused CF might produce a cognitive overload and prohibit feedback processing, our results indicated that


Bir Araştırma



87

the participants managed to deal with the comprehensive feedback they received effectively. Moreover, during the interviews, they all mentioned that CF would not be effective enough if their teachers marked only some of the errors in their writing because this would create a wrong impression that the rest of the text does not include any errors. The participants’ views support Van Beuningen’s (2010) argument that it might be rather confusing for students to observe that some of their errors have been corrected while others have not. An implication we can draw from these findings is that learners’ views

about focused and unfocused CF are critical to teachers’ decisions about CF practices.

An important finding of our study is that the participants responded to CF in almost all of the cases and their revisions were successful most of the time. This might be attributed to the match between their perceptions about effective CF strategies and the CF practices in our study because as several researchers (McCargar, 1993; Schulz, 2001; Montgomery & Baker, 2007) suggest, students are more likely to pay more attention to CF and utilize it more effectively if they believe in its effects. Therefore; teachers should devote some time to discuss their CF practices with their students in order to become better aware of their perceptions and to improve the effectiveness of CF. Another implication of our study is that recording errors enabled the participants to become better aware of their frequent types of errors and to keep track of their improvement. The entries in their learning diaries provide evidence that this awareness led them to detect the wrong practices in their writing which caused these errors, to develop effective strategies to fix these errors and to avoid them in their future essays. Moreover, we observed that keeping a learning diary stimulated critical thinking because the participants usually provided arguments and/or evidence to support their evaluations. We could also gain a deeper understanding of their response to CCICF with the entries in their learning diaries. Thus, we can suggest that during the CF provision process, teachers should ask their students to record their errors and to keep learning diaries. In this way, they can help the learners to think more deeply about their learning and to keep track of their progress. Also, it enables teachers to have a thorough understanding of their students’ perceptions about and response to CF. The data from the learning diaries also indicated that an increase in the number of errors usually resulted in feelings of disappointment and discouragement. Therefore, it may be

suggested that, while giving feedback, teachers’ over concern with accuracy in students writing and focusing on only errors, not on improvement, might result in negative attitudes and reactions. In order to prevent these negative feelings, feedback practices which also focus on positive feedback might be more beneficial. In the present study, we were able to detect some changes in the participants’ perceptions

about CF over time by comparing the data from the learning diaries and retrospective interviews, which implies the importance of having a variety of data sources. Another implication of this finding is that in order to explore learners’ perceptions about CF, rather than applying one-shot questionnaires and presenting only a static view of students’ perceptions, researchers should also investigate the changes in students’ perceptions over time. Our findings indicated that receiving content and organization feedback first and separately gave the participants a second opportunity to proofread their essays because one of them could notice and self-correct an error while writing a revised draft. Also, during the interviews, the three participants mentioned that they had appreciated receiving content and organization feedback first and separately because they could focus




88

88

on one thing at a time, which they believed prevented confusion. We suggest that giving content and organization feedback first and separately can ease the CF provision process for teachers and feedback processing and utilization for learners. Also, while revising their essays according to the content and organization feedback, the participants deleted and/or changed some parts of their essays. This finding may imply that dealing with content and organization first prevents teachers and learners from allocating time and energy on errors in parts of texts which would be deleted or changed in the next draft.

5. Suggestions for Further Research

We suggest that further research should deal with the effects of individual differences such as language learning experience, motivation and beliefs about CF on learners’ response to CF and their (lack of) accuracy development over time. Another fruitful research topic could be the effects of comprehensive CF on student writers’ writing complexity. Further research may also deal with the effects of comprehensive CF when it is combined with positive feedback which focuses on strengths and improvement in learners’ written production. The data from the learning diaries and interviews made it clear that the CF practices in our study usually matched the participants’ preferences and expectations. Further research may investigate how learners utilize CF and respond to it if there is mismatch between their preferences and expectations and their teachers’ CF practices. During the data collection process, the participants of the present study were intermediate level students, who had the necessary linguistic resources to understand and utilize indirect CF effectively. We suggest other researchers to investigate how lower level learners utilize indirect CF and respond to it.

References Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th edition). New York:

Longman.

Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied

Linguistics, 9, 147-159. Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In

C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.

Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.


Bir Araştırma



89

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and

unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371.

Fathman, A. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form

versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to

Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan: The

University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. (pp.81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it

need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184. Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual,

teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. (pp.185-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Han, Z. (2002). Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicative language

teaching. RELC Journal 33 (1), 1-34. Hartshorn, J. K. (2008). The effects of manageable corrective feedback on ESL writing

accuracy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo UT.

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.

Hyland, F. (2000). ESL Writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students.

Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54. Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System,

31 (2), 217-230. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon Press. Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language

Journal, 66(2), 140-149.




90

90

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing

Company. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.

In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy. Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179-192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

McCargar, D. (1993). Teacher and student role expectations: Cross-cultural differences

and implications. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 192-207. Montgomery, J. L. & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions,

teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99.

Najmaddin, S. M-A. (2010). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of types of corrective

feedback in writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara. Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and

quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528. Qi, D. S. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second

language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303 . Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second

language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 46-70.

Sakalı, R. B. (2007). Investigating changes in students’ writing feedback perceptions.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.

Schmidt, R. (1990a). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for

applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26. Schmidt, R. (1990b). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language

instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning

the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Columbia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.


Bir Araştırma



91

Sheen, Y. (2010). The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 169-179.

Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46.

Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of

corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.

Svalberg, A. M-L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching,

40(4), 287-308. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language

Learning, 46, 327-369. Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric: Studies in

English Literature and Linguistics, 27, 225-240. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305. Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives,

empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27.

Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and

indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.

Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL

writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.




92

92

APPENDIX 1

Error Families, Error Categories and Error Types

A. Grammatical Error Family Sentence Structure Errors 1.Run-on sentences (includes comma splices) 2. Incomplete sentences

3. Word order

Determiner Errors 1. Articles (includes missing articles and incorrect

use) 2. Possessive adjectives and possessive nouns 3. Demonstratives as determiners 4. Quantifiers

Verb Errors 1. Subject-verb agreement (includes fractional expressions, the use of the verb “to be” and indefinite pronouns as subjects) 2. Verb tense 3. Verb form (includes the use of the active/passive) 4. Infinitives and gerunds

Numeric Shift Errors 1. Count-non-count 2. Singular-plural

Semantic Errors 1. Unclear meaning (includes irrelevant words in a sentence, includes irrelevant sentences and titles) 2. Awkwardness 3. Insertion / Omission (Includes insertion/omission of a whole sentence, excludes errors related to articles, pronouns, prepositions, punctuation marks and quantifiers)

Modals (Excludes missing modals) 1. Semantically incorrect use 2. Structurally incorrect use Pronoun Errors (includes missing pronouns and

incorrect use, includes repetition of a noun instead of using a pronoun) 1. Possessive pronouns 2. Object pronouns 3. Subject pronouns (includes the use of other/s) 4. Indefinite pronouns 5. Demonstrative pronouns 6. Relative pronouns 7. Reflexive pronouns Adjective Form Errors (includes semantically and structurally incorrect use) 1. Comparative adjectives 2. Superlative adjectives

B. Lexical Error Family 1. Word Choice (excludes spelling errors, includes sloppy words, verb choice, linking words, nonwords,

errors in the use of idiomatic expressions and register choices inappropriate for academic writing)

2. Word Form ( excludes verb form errors and includes incorrect use of affixes) 3. Prepositions (includes missing prepositions and incorrect use, excludes spelling errors)

C. Mechanical Error Family 1. Spelling 2. Capitalization 3. New Paragraph 4. Punctuation (excludes run-ons)


Bir Araştırma



93

APPENDIX 2

ERROR SAMPLES AND EXAMPLES OF CODED CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

ERROR SAMPLE CORRECTION

1. There was a terrible snowstorm last weekend, all flights were cancelled. RO

These independent clauses need to be combined or punctuated properly.

2. Because he had been promoted. INC It cannot stand by itself. An independent clause is

required.

3. We have had so far three exams. WO We have had three exams so far.

4. He is currently working in US. He is currently working in the US.

ART.

5.My mother cousins visit us very often. My mother's cousins visit us very often.

poss.

6.This shoes are really nice. These shoes are really nice.

Dem.

7. He has a little books in English. He has a few books in English.

Quant.

8. One of the students are Spanish. One of the students is Spanish.

SV

9. She go to the swimming pool yesterday. She went to the swimming pool yesterday

VT

10. The room cleans every morning. The room is cleaned every morning.

VF

11. They enjoy to watch the Olympics. They enjoy watching the Olympics.

Inf./Ger.

12. She gave me advices on car security. She gave me advice on car security.

C/NC

13. Two new bar were opened here last year.

S/PL Two new bars were opened here last year.

14. Now women look after with great came to them. ? Unclear meaning

15. He has a lot of pressure on him being the manager. AWK

Being the manager, he has a lot of pressure on him.

16.They bought a new house after they the lottery.

They bought a new house after they won the lottery.

17. This way feeling can last for a long time.

This feeling can last for a long time.




94

94

18. You mustn't come with us if you don't want to. Mod.(semantically incorrect)

You don't have to come with us if you don't want to.

19.It have to be strong enough to carry five people.Mod. (structurally incorrect)

It has to be strong enough to carry five people.

20. Mine is newer than her. Mine is newer than hers.

Poss. Pro.

21. Our teacher gives we too much

homework. Obj.Pro. Our teacher gives us too much homework.

22. Its doesn't have to be made of metal. It doesn't have to be made of metal.

Subj.Pro. 23. There is anything wrong with the TV. We

There is something wrong with the TV. We need to call the reception.

Indef.Pro. need to call the reception.

24. This is Rose over there. That is Rose over there.

Dem.Pro.

25. That's the house where we bought last summer. Rel. Pro.

That's the house which we bought last summer.

26. They painted the house themself. They painted the house themselves.

Ref. Pro.

27. He is intelligent than his brother. He is more intelligent than his brother.

Comp.adj.

28. I am the more hardworking student in my class. Sup.adj.

I am the most hardworking student in my class.

29.It was still painful, because he went to see a doctor. WC

It was still painful, so he went to see a doctor.

30. Women are difference from men in many ways. WF

Women are different from men in many ways.

31. He always goes for a walk in 7:00 AM. He always goes for a walk at 7:00 AM.

Prep.

32. I have just finished my homwork. I have just finished my homework.

Sp

33. Although he is a millionaire, He lives in a small flat. CAP

Although he is a millionaire, he lives in a small flat.

34. ……For all markets the spending on cinema will remain fairly constant. We conclude that there is …… Par.

Start a new paragraph.

35. If she knew the answer she could help you. Punct.

If she knew the answer, she could help you.

international journal of language academy. .pdf · an increase in the number of numeric shift...

Documents